X-rated Bob wrote
Clapton has always been a fashion plate. What you can say about his that these days he wears items that are expensive, fashionable AND appropriate for a guy of his age.
I disagree. What Karl Lagerfeld thinks is appropriate for a man in his late '60s often isn't. Clapton's pyjamas just bug me. I don't care if they cost $5,000, he still looks like he spends all day at home smoking weed and watching telly and couldn't be bothered to change for the gig. Sometimes he does wear real clothes and that's great. There's a certain age at which a man looks better in a suit than any other ensemble (assuming it actually fits, which, if you watch SA men going past you in the airport, you quickly recognise is not a priority for most). And for those of you who think: suit=corporate sell-out, it's time to grow up and start thinking suit=David Bowie / suit=Nick Cave.
I firmly believe that not making an effort with your outfit is disrespectful to your audience. I'm in full agreement with Rene on this one - and if you look at his profile pic, you'll see he makes an effort, and a successful one IMO.
I get that the people that Bob's talking about have a no-image image. That's fine given what they want to convey. But I'd also point out that if you look at Richard Thompson and Danny Thompson, you see men far better dressed than the average English bloke of that age.
But up until the '60s, serious musicians didn't have to dress down to prove they were for real. Look at Davis, Coltrane and Monke. Look at Rheinhard, Muddy Waters, Duke Ellington.
I don't mind an older guy playing a fiddle in a pair of trousers and his shirt sleeves. What bugs me are SA bands who appear in shorts and flipflops and an old t-shirt commemorating the school fun-run. My feeling is: Are you part of the audience or one of the performers? Make up your mind.
